Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1852 (RAJ)

Navin Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2007-09-27

G.S.SARRAF

body2007
JUDGMENT 1. - The accused petitioner has preferred this criminal revision petition under Sections 397, 401 CrRC. against the order dated 21.7.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fat Track) No.2, Jhunjhunu in sessions case no. 104/2006 whereby charges have been framed against the petitioner under Sections 118, 376/109 IPC. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the prosecutrix Sonu lodged a written report at 2:15 P.M. on 22.6.2006 at the Kotwali, Jhunjhunu that on that day she and her younger brother Navin came to G.R. Public School from their village Dhani Pirotaki. After closing of the school at 12:15 P.M. she and her brother were coming from Tal. Balbeer and Suresh (both brothers-in-law in relation) boarded the same taxi at Mandawa Mod. When the taxi reached near the depot they told her to get down from the taxi as her father had come there who was sitting at a medicine shop in front of the hospital and, therefore, she could go with her father. At this she and her brother got down from the taxi. Balbeer took her brother for having 1 juice and Suresh took her to Navin Hotel for having meal there. Suresh then took her in room no. 106 of the hotel and committed wrong act with her and left her when she started weeping. On the basis of this report, the police implicated the petitioner-who is the owner of Navin Hotel on the ground that he made available room no. 106 to Suresh which room in fact was let to one 1 Janardan Gaur. After investigation, the police submitted a challan against the petitioner Navin, Suresh and Balbeer. Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Jhunjhunu by order dated 21.07.2006, in addition to framing charges against the co-accused under various sections of IPC, framed charges against the petitioner under Sections 118, 376/109 IPC. Aggrieved by this order, so far as it relates to him, the petitioner has filed this revision petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned public prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant. 4. Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is no allegation whatsoever against the petitioner in the FI.R. and in the statement of prosecutrix Sonu recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned public prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant. 4. Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is no allegation whatsoever against the petitioner in the FI.R. and in the statement of prosecutrix Sonu recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC. and since what has been stated by her in regard to the petitioner in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC. does not find place either in the F.I.R. or in the statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC., therefore, the allegation made against the petitioner in the statement under Section 161 CrPC. is of no consequence. He has further contended that no identification parade has been held and there is no material on record by which it can be concluded that the petitioner let the room to the co-accused Suresh or that the petitioner was present at the counter when the room was let. He has also contended that even if the allegation of the prosecution be taken on its face value there was no occasion for the person at the counter to know that any offence under Section 376 IPC would be committed in the room. He has said that there is no evidence on record to make out a prima facie case against the petitioner to substantiate the charges framed against him and, therefore, the petitioner deserves to be discharged. He has cited in support JT 2007 (10) SC 246 and 1987 Cr.Law Journal 584. 5. Mr. H.S. Moond learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the petitioner is the owner of Navin Hotel and it is clear from the statement of the prosecutrix Sonu recorded under Section 161 CrP.C. that it was the petitioner who let the room no. 106 in the hotel to the co-accused Suresh which was in the occupation of another person. He has quoted the following lines of the statement of the prosecutrix Sonu recorded under Section 161 CrPC. 106 in the hotel to the co-accused Suresh which was in the occupation of another person. He has quoted the following lines of the statement of the prosecutrix Sonu recorded under Section 161 CrPC. " fQj lqjs'k esjs dks ogha ,d xyh esa cgyk iqlykdj ,d gksVy esa ys x;k] ftldk uke uohu Fkk ogka ys x;kA ogka dkm.Vj ij ,d yM+dk mez 30&35 lky dk Fkk cSBk Fkk ftldk lqjs'k us uohu uke ls iqdkjk] ftlls dejs dh pkch ekaxh rks ml dkm.Vj ij cSBs yM+ds us dgk fd mij Nr ij 106 No. dejk gS mldh pkch gSA tYnh ls ,d ?k.Vk esa gh lyVdj vk tkuk eSaus ;g dejk nwljs O;fDr dks fdjk;k ij ns j[kk gSA " 6. Mr. Moond has argued that the above statement finds corroboration from Janardan Gaur, Vijay Singh and Anita and that the above evidence together with the entries made in the hotel register make it very clear that it was the petitioner who facilitate the crime and knew very well what offence would be committed in the room and he in fact aided the commission of that offence. He has argued that the prosecution is expected to make out a prima facie case for the purpose of framing charge and at this stage the court is only to see whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. According to him the evidence available on record is sufficient for proceeding against the petitioner under Section 118 and 376/109 IPC. He has then said that after framing of the charges against the petitioner eight witnesses have already been examined in the trial court including the prosecutrix Sonu PW.5 and her brother Navin PW.2 and, therefore, it will not be proper to interfere at this stage of the trial. He has placed reliance on 2000 (4) Crimes 142 (SC) and 1998 Cr.Law Reporter (Raj.) 297. 7. Mr. A.K. Gupta has said in reply that the two decisions relied upon by the counsel for the complainant do not set out the facts or the reasons for the conclusion and, therefore, they do not form a binding precedent. He has placed reliance on (2000) 5 SCC 488 & (1997) 11 SCC 641 . 8. I have considered the rival contentions. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case I am not inclined to interfere. 10. He has placed reliance on (2000) 5 SCC 488 & (1997) 11 SCC 641 . 8. I have considered the rival contentions. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case I am not inclined to interfere. 10. The revision petition stands dismissed.Record of the case be sent back to the trial court immediately. Revision dismissed. *******